| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/07/2009 11:34:03 PM · #826 |
So David, let me follow up a little with you answers. In what way do you disagree with Provine's statements? Do you allow for the possibility that his statements are wrong? or do you just feel they go slightly too far? In other words, it doesn't sound like you want to be as black-and-white as Provine. Does this indicate you feel we live in a gray world (where the answers are somewhere in between)? or in a world where black is probably the truth, but you allow that white could be right as well? Do you get what I'm asking?
Louis is more willing to accept the statement at face value (although it looks like he hedges ever so slightly as well). I think Provine's statement about "free will" means he doesn't believe it exists. My guess, although I'm not positive about this, is he would feel we are trapped in a fatalistic course of atomic interactions (give or take some quantum randomness). |
|
|
|
12/07/2009 11:40:09 PM · #827 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis is more willing to accept the statement at face value (although it looks like he hedges ever so slightly as well). |
No, I just don't know what the free will comment means. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 01:16:39 AM · #828 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis is more willing to accept the statement at face value (although it looks like he hedges ever so slightly as well). |
No, I just don't know what the free will comment means. |
I was talking about you ever so slightly wanting to provide a "purpose" to life. :) |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 07:19:01 AM · #829 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
With a bit of trepidation I am re-entering a Rant thread in the hopes of understanding. I heard a quote by William Provine this weekend and wondered if the atheists on these threads would check off on it 100% or would they qualify it somehow to their own liking. I'm not looking for argument but rather just to know if my understanding of the other side is as accurate as I think. I view atheists as agreeing completely with the following statement and would view disagreements as possibly being logically inconsistent (although I'm happy to hear arguments otherwise).
There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.
Opinions? |
You know, I read this and my first reaction was "well how cold is that!" The more I think about it, though, the more I realize that there are some days I feel EXACTLY this way. I used to believe (and do sometimes still) in the goodness of mankind. But I have a hard time with that lately. I do not know if that's because I've become really old in the past year (amazing how much - scary, really) or I'm just freakin' depressed or what. But yeah, I have come to realize there are no gods, no purposes, no ultimate meaning in life. I believe there is free will for humans, but to what end?
Other days I'm not quite this depressed, honest. :-) (And I don't know if I count as an atheist. I get just as peeved at overthetop atheists as I do at overthetop Muslims or Christians.) |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 07:21:05 AM · #830 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you get what I'm asking? |
mmmm...I guess not. I don't necessarily disagree with what you copypasta'ed (I assume those are the 'statements' made by Dr. Provine, since the Wiki link you gave seems rather thin), although I recognize there are others who see it differently. So, let's say I live in a world where A is probably the truth, but I'm willing to listen to the arguments that B (or C, or ZZ) might be the truth instead. For the record, it ain't happened yet. ;-)
|
|
|
|
12/08/2009 08:33:37 AM · #831 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis is more willing to accept the statement at face value (although it looks like he hedges ever so slightly as well). |
No, I just don't know what the free will comment means. |
I was talking about you ever so slightly wanting to provide a "purpose" to life. :) |
Oh. Well, the only purpose is to live out the destiny of our replicators and enjoy the ride in the meantime, being careful to help the other organics along the way. It's all there is, so don't make it miserable. Within the scope of the eighty-odd years we have, that's a purpose, but on the scale of the beginning and end of the universe, no, there's no purpose and meaning in it. That might be depressing, but that's another thing: the universe and All That Is doesn't care. Humanity is about as meaningful to the universe -- which doesn't know anything about anything -- as that baby yak getting torn apart alive by those lions is to evolution. I'm cool with that. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 10:24:02 AM · #832 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
But I have a hard time with that lately. I do not know if that's because I've become really old in the past year (amazing how much - scary, really) or I'm just freakin' depressed or what. |
So are you saying atheists are just religious people in need of an antidepressant? :)
Anybody else wanna chip in their opinion on the quote? |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 10:43:28 AM · #833 |
| I'd also be interested in the reverse. A kind of credo from the believers as to what they believe, complete with the ultimate destiny they think is in store for humanity, and also individuals of various flavours (atheists, non-members of their group, etc.), laid out in as matter-of-fact a manner as possible with few literary accouterments, to make it plain how different it is from the supplied quote. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 10:44:55 AM · #834 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
But I have a hard time with that lately. I do not know if that's because I've become really old in the past year (amazing how much - scary, really) or I'm just freakin' depressed or what. |
So are you saying atheists are just religious people in need of an antidepressant? :)
Anybody else wanna chip in their opinion on the quote? |
Gosh. I do believe I've just been marginalized. I think I'd prefer to be yanko'd. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 10:58:40 AM · #835 |
I believe  Melethia was just marginalized. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 12:48:29 PM · #836 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Melethia:
But I have a hard time with that lately. I do not know if that's because I've become really old in the past year (amazing how much - scary, really) or I'm just freakin' depressed or what. |
So are you saying atheists are just religious people in need of an antidepressant? :)
Anybody else wanna chip in their opinion on the quote? |
Gosh. I do believe I've just been marginalized. I think I'd prefer to be yanko'd. |
Aww Deb, I wasn't marginalizing you, but you yourself did say "I don't know if I count as an atheist" so I didn't quite know what to make of your answer (especially since you said "I have come to realize there are no gods". Isn't that being an atheist?) |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 12:52:45 PM · #837 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I'd also be interested in the reverse. A kind of credo from the believers as to what they believe, complete with the ultimate destiny they think is in store for humanity, and also individuals of various flavours (atheists, non-members of their group, etc.), laid out in as matter-of-fact a manner as possible with few literary accouterments, to make it plain how different it is from the supplied quote. |
It would almost be a directly antithetical statement:
There is a God, an ultimate purpose, and goal-directed forces in our lives. There is life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain (at laest as certain as Provine) that only my body will die. That is not the end of me. There is an ultimate foundation for ethics; a true right and wrong, an ultimate meaning in life, and free will for humans, as well.
Honestly I don't buy into ANY of his statements. But don't get off track on me. We talk about me enough on these threads. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 12:54:46 PM · #838 |
| What's the evidence for all of this? Honest question. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 01:30:20 PM · #839 |
Originally posted by Louis:
What's the evidence for all of this? Honest question. |
But don't get off track on me. We talk about me enough on these threads. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 01:30:51 PM · #840 |
FWIW, I'm pretty darn sure that EVERY animal has free will. The idea that any creature is nothing more than a pre-programmed automaton is one of the most stunningly arrogant concepts ever proposed by man. Even a bug can make independent decisions.
"...scientists are finally moving past the idea that locusts, ants, bees and other insects are simple machines that respond to events in predictable ways, said Sarah Farris, an evolutionary neurobiologist at West Virginia University in Morgantown. Study after study now shows that insects can, in fact, change their behavior depending on the circumstances."
Message edited by author 2009-12-08 13:31:08. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 01:38:02 PM · #841 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
FWIW, I'm pretty darn sure that EVERY animal has free will. The idea that any creature is nothing more than a pre-programmed automaton is one of the most stunningly arrogant concepts ever proposed by man. Even a bug can make independent decisions.
"...scientists are finally moving past the idea that locusts, ants, bees and other insects are simple machines that respond to events in predictable ways, said Sarah Farris, an evolutionary neurobiologist at West Virginia University in Morgantown. Study after study now shows that insects can, in fact, change their behavior depending on the circumstances." |
It seems that part of Provine's statement is the most sticky with this thread. Do you agree with all the other parts?
Message edited by author 2009-12-08 13:38:21. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 02:00:17 PM · #842 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It seems that part of Provine's statement is the most sticky with this thread. Do you agree with all the other parts? |
Mostly. I hesitate over similar sticking points as Louis: there are natural goal-directed forces, there is an ultimate foundation for ethics, free will and meaning to life. They're just not the "Simon Says" versions popularized by religion. Apply that same question to an orangutan, wildebeest or pine tree. Is there no room for ethics among orangutans? Does a wildebeest have nothing to live for? Do pine trees wind up in pine tree heaven? Entire ecosystems came and went before humans ever existed, and the only difference I see is that we've evolved the arrogant capacity to believe we're "special." |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 04:27:22 PM · #843 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
FWIW, I'm pretty darn sure that EVERY animal has free will. The idea that any creature is nothing more than a pre-programmed automaton is one of the most stunningly arrogant concepts ever proposed by man. Even a bug can make independent decisions.
"...scientists are finally moving past the idea that locusts, ants, bees and other insects are simple machines that respond to events in predictable ways, said Sarah Farris, an evolutionary neurobiologist at West Virginia University in Morgantown. Study after study now shows that insects can, in fact, change their behavior depending on the circumstances." |
The concept "free will" has no meaning in this context; free will is more than the exercising of choice. For the concept to have any meaning beyond that, there has to be a moral/ethical system in place to contextualize the choices, as it were. So I'm not particularly impressed with scientific experiments that show us how insects can make choices...
R.
Message edited by author 2009-12-08 16:44:55. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 04:33:56 PM · #844 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
FWIW, I'm pretty darn sure that EVERY animal has free will. The idea that any creature is nothing more than a pre-programmed automaton is one of the most stunningly arrogant concepts ever proposed by man. Even a bug can make independent decisions.
"...scientists are finally moving past the idea that locusts, ants, bees and other insects are simple machines that respond to events in predictable ways, said Sarah Farris, an evolutionary neurobiologist at West Virginia University in Morgantown. Study after study now shows that insects can, in fact, change their behavior depending on the circumstances." |
The concept "free will" has no meaning int his context; free will is more than the exercising of choice. For the concept to have any meaning beyond that, there has to be a moral/ethical system in place to contextualize the choices, as it were. So I'm not particularly with scientific experiments that show us how insects can make choices...
R. |
This is interesting, Robert. Are you saying that, in this context, "free will" does not mean simply to choose, but to choose between "right" and "wrong"? |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 04:47:56 PM · #845 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The concept "free will" has no meaning in this context; free will is more than the exercising of choice. For the concept to have any meaning beyond that, there has to be a moral/ethical system in place to contextualize the choices, as it were. So I'm not particularly impressed with scientific experiments that show us how insects can make choices...
R. |
This is interesting, Robert. Are you saying that, in this context, "free will" does not mean simply to choose, but to choose between "right" and "wrong"? |
More or less, yeah. That'll do for now :-)
R. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 04:53:46 PM · #846 |
My guess is Provine would go beyond Bear's definition (although his isn't a bad one).
A water drop sliding down a wall. Does it have free will to choose where it goes? Of course not. How about if it hits an imperfection in the wall? Does it have free will to go left or right? The answer is still no. Could the wall ever become complex enough so as to grant the water drop free will in choosing which path to take down the wall? The answer is no. My guess is Provine would say we are nothing but very complex walls. He would, indeed, assert that we are all, in fact, automata. At least that's what I think he'd say. Maybe I could try to find an essay or something to back that up.
And to me, this is the natural conclusion that should be reached by materialists (making some sort of distinction from atheists).
Message edited by author 2009-12-08 16:54:34. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 05:00:10 PM · #847 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by eqsite:
This is interesting, Robert. Are you saying that, in this context, "free will" does not mean simply to choose, but to choose between "right" and "wrong"? |
More or less, yeah. That'll do for now :-)
R. |
The problem I see here is that "we" define "right and wrong" ... when an animal performs an altruistic act -- one which is more beneficial to another than to themselves -- doesn't that fit our practical definition of "choosing to do right?" Humans are not the only species which do such ...
Message edited by author 2009-12-08 17:01:03. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 05:00:19 PM · #848 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
This is interesting, Robert. Are you saying that, in this context, "free will" does not mean simply to choose, but to choose between "right" and "wrong"? |
Yeah, I'm not following. I take free will to mean an individual is not being controlled by another. That is, the person or animal is able to make independent choices based upon its own thought processes. Any mother with a jar of strained peas and a fussy baby will tell you that a grasp of ethics or morality is not necessary to demonstrate free will.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Could the wall ever become complex enough so as to grant the water drop free will in choosing which path to take down the wall? The answer is no. |
Insects can certainly choose a path down a wall. One of Darwin's greatest epiphanies was when he realized that earthworms make intelligent choices.
Message edited by author 2009-12-08 17:12:05. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 05:19:32 PM · #849 |
This is all just another example of taking a very specific concept and denaturing it to fit your own world view. If you (any of you) want to argue that "choice" and "free will" are synonymous, then go ahead; but if that's the case, why even bother with the phrase "free will" at all? It's a very specific concept that comes out of a very specific religious context, and NO, an infant refusing strained peas is not exhibiting free will.
We could go on and on about this, but there's no point. I'd be willing to concede the general's assertion that altruism in animals might be properly labeled "free will", but that still isn't the same thing as simply making a choice. And there's really no point in debating this, ALL these debates in DPC devolve to the same few people denaturing relatively high-level concepts to the least common denominator and claiming they've thereby made an irrefutable point.
R. |
|
|
|
12/08/2009 05:27:12 PM · #850 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by eqsite:
This is interesting, Robert. Are you saying that, in this context, "free will" does not mean simply to choose, but to choose between "right" and "wrong"? |
Yeah, I'm not following. I take free will to mean an individual is not being controlled by another. That is, the person or animal is able to make independent choices based upon its own thought processes. Any mother with a jar of strained peas and a fussy baby will tell you that a grasp of ethics or morality is not necessary to demonstrate free will.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Could the wall ever become complex enough so as to grant the water drop free will in choosing which path to take down the wall? The answer is no. |
Insects can certainly choose a path down a wall. One of Darwin's greatest epiphanies was when he realized that earthworms make intelligent choices. |
Can they? I guess it depends on your meaning of choose. What if their little brains are really just organic versions of water drops running down their own walls? Would it be a choice then? |
|
